Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

An open letter to Richard Lindzen

with 166 comments

Last week, I was fortunate enough to get a ticket to a meeting in the Palace of Westminster at which MIT Professor Richard Lindzen was the guest speaker. Unfortunately, as a result of frustration with what I saw as Lindzen’s failure to explain the relevance of palaeoclimatology to our understanding of the way in which the Earth regulates its temperature, I blew my chance to ask a question. However, Prof. Lindzen kindly invited me to email them to him instead. I know it was a bit cheeky of me but, rather than email him the 3 questions I had prepared, I decided to email him questions arising from what he actually said instead. What follows is a copy of my rather long (whose fault is that?) email (I sent to him the next day) – only very slightly amended as a consequence of a subsequent exchange of emails (in which he did not answer any of my questions)…

***UPDATE: Because this is such a long post you may wish to skip ahead and come back later (may be). If so, go to this simple 17 sentence summary first or instead!***
————————
Dear Professor Lindzen,

RE: My questions arising from listening to your talk entitled ‘Global Warming: How to Approach the Science (Climate models and the evidence)’, at the Palace of Westminster on Wednesday 22 February 2012

Given Viscount Monckton’s curtailment of our discussion, I am grateful to you for offering to answer my questions via email. I trust you have (had) a safe journey back to the USA.

In order that you may appreciate where I am coming from on this subject, please note that I am 47 years old and have over 25 years of professional work experience as a mine geologist and hydrogeologist; mostly having worked in environmental consultancy but also for the Environment Agency (the equivalent of your EPA). However, in addition to a BSc in Geology and an MSc in Hydrogeology, I now have an MA in Environmental Politics. (For more background on me, please see the ‘About’ page of my blog). In addition to my academic qualifications, I am a Fellow of the Geological Society of London (GSL) and a Chartered Geologist and, although I do not speak for the GSL (which can and does speak for itself – as does the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)), I am copying this email to GSL Vice-President Professor Colin Summerhayes (who also asked you the question about the Palaeocene Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM] at the meeting).

As you might imagine, I had come to the meeting with 3 questions prepared in the hope that I might get to ask at least one. Unfortunately, I never got as far as my first question (and was not allowed a second attempt)… However, given that the moment has now passed, I have decided that it would make more sense to pose my questions to you as they arise from the notes I made while you were talking. This email is therefore rather long but, even if it takes you a while (given all your other commitments), I hope you will be willing and able to respond in due course (e.g. please feel free to insert your responses in a distinctive font colour and return my email).

I hope you will not be offended but, I must confess to being somewhat surprised that your talk was not significantly different from the version on the Internet (i.e. as delivered 21 months ago at the ICCC4 in May 2010). In addition, although perfectly polite, I was disappointed by your seemingly repeated insinuation that the IPCC is a politically alarmist institution and/or that just about anyone that disagrees with you (e.g. Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone) is part of some kind of global conspiracy to foist environmental alarmism on a credulous world; presumably for reasons of personal (scientific) or political expediency. You will gather from all this that I do not buy-in to the assertion that Climategate was anything other than a mendacious attempt to discredit climate science and scientists, which was all the more obvious after its repetition last year.

Therefore, although I am not questioning whether you believe what you say to be true (as that would be to question your integrity and/or intellectual honesty); I am bound to ask – where is the actual evidence for this? Furthermore, I am also bound to say that, on the contrary, there is very clear historical documentary evidence for an extensive, business-led, campaign to downplay, deny or dismiss a whole sequence of environmental problems over recent decades (e.g. see Merchants of Doubt). It is because of this that, despite what I consider to be my sound grasp of the physical basis for concern over anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), my Lack of Environment blog tends to focus on the politics underlying its denial – and the denial of all other environmental problems (e.g. your previous advocacy work for and on behalf of the tobacco industry). However, I digress… As promised, here are my thoughts regarding your presentation:

In addition to the foregoing, I would make one further observation regarding your criticism of the IPCC: As you must know from first-hand experience, by virtue of the way the IPCC was set-up by UN-member governments, all of its reports are subject to line-by-line and word-by-word scrutiny; such that everything it has ever published has tended to be optimistic, under-stated and/or couched in vague and convoluted caveats. Furthermore, I should hope that you would also acknowledge that its AR4 documents (2007) are also now out-of-date?

In essence, your optimism appears to be founded upon your conviction that climate sensitivity is low. However, the fact remains that the last time the Earth experienced 450ppm of atmospheric CO2 (a level that we now seem certain to exceed) was 35 million years ago when global average temperatures were 4 Celsius warmer than prior to the Industrial Revolution; at which time Antarctica was ice-free. Furthermore, all existing life on Earth is adapted to the way things are now. Therefore, it is utterly irrelevant that it may have been significantly warmer in the more distant past. Do I really have to remind you that modern humans (cities, cultivation and civilisation) would not be here if it were not for the fact that both climate and sea levels have been remarkably stable for at least 7,000 years?

You expressed surprise at the fact that academics choose to be alarmed; whereas the public are sceptical. This seems a remarkable piece of reality inversion to me; and makes me wonder who you would consult if you were concerned that you might have a serious life-threatening medical condition? Surely the public’s scepticism and/or cynicism owes more to belief in ‘the marketplace of ideas’ and the modern preference for believing in conspiracy theories that absolve us of responsibility – and/or blame somebody else – for bad things that happen?

I was somewhat surprised at your criticism of the 255 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) signatories to a letter in Nature and the Guardian newspaper in May 2010 (i.e. that many were not actively involved in climate science) because you are the only climate scientist amongst sixteen signatories to a letter that appeared recently in the WSJ (which also refused to publish one signed by 255 relevant academics). Surely, then, it is hypocritical of you to criticise the NAS letter?

One of the many graphs you displayed showed at least a 0.6 Celsius rise since 1860 (although Richard Muller’s BEST study would suggest (as have many others before) that the increase is more than this). However, despite the relative climate and sea level stability over the last 7,000 years, you dismissed this as not “statistically significant”. Can you tell me at what point you would consider a rise to be statistically significant; and why? Are you not worried at all by the fact that, due to the massive inertia in the climate system, more warming is already “in the pipeline”?

You also criticised the dubious practice of manipulating the axes of graphs to misrepresent data and/or convey misleading ideas. However, at least one of your graphs did exactly that (i.e. steeply inclined Keeling Curve superimposed on cherry-picked slightly-declining, temperature gradient) [see important Footnote]. I would therefore agree with you, as the use of such tactics is clearly capable of suggesting that there is no correlation between two variables that are very well correlated indeed. Furthermore, I would be interested to know what your reaction is to the ‘Still Going Down the Up Escalator’ article on the SkepticalScience Website? Will you at least admit that Global Warming did not stop in 1998?

You mentioned in your talk that the Sun was 20% dimmer 2000 Ma BP and that the Earth was much colder back then (i.e. ‘Snowball Earth’). However, it has been much warmer in the past as well. This would appear to demonstrate that the Sun is not a dominant cause of current warming. Furthermore, the USGS have recently confirmed that volcanoes are not either. Despite your misgivings about use of the word “incontrovertible”, would you accept these assertions as at least highly likely to be true?

Although not the strongest greenhouse gas (GHG), CO2 is the most abundant, long-lived, GHG there is (i.e. water vapour is much more abundant but comes and goes; whereas methane is 23 times more powerful as a GHG but is much less abundant). Furthermore, CO2 is the only thing capable of explaining the warming we have seen over the last 150 years, because CO2 is the only thing that has changed significantly (i.e. increased by 40%) in that time. Surely this is what is known in science as a “fair test”? Nothing else has changed significantly (not the Sun, not cosmic rays, not water vapour, not volcanic eruptions). Given all of the above, can you please explain to me why you continue to assert that the science behind concern over the enhanced greenhouse effect is uncertain?

Towards the end of your talk, you mocked the alarmism of the 1920s. However, it was about that time that the first photographic records were made of glaciers in the Himalayas and elsewhere. Recent similar expeditions have proved that very significant loss of glacier ice-mass (i.e. depth and length) has occurred in 90 years and, in the case of South Georgia (i.e. the UK territory in the South Atlantic!) it is known that most of the retreat has occurred in the last 30 years. Furthermore, as an example closer to your home, it is currently estimated that in Montana, Glacier National Park has already lost over 75% of the 150 glaciers first observed (by Europeans) in the 1880s and, even at current rates of melting, they are all expected to have disappeared by 2030. At what stage do you think the National Park should be re-named? Would it not be a good idea for humanity to collectively agree to try and stop this happening elsewhere by moving rapidly to a low/zero carbon economy?

Finally, for the record, the 3 questions I had prepared (to which I would still also be delighted to receive answers), are as follows:

Concern over anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is based on the study of palaeoclimatology, not on computer modelling. However, models have helped to predict the atmospheric response to greenhouse gas emissions; and any uncertainties in model predictions have been due to uncertainties in emissions projections. Therefore, when reviewed retrospectively (choosing the most appropriate emissions scenario that reflects what actually happened to emissions), the models are demonstrably very accurate (if they include all climate forcings). Given all of this, why is it that you maintain that we have no reason to be concerned?

What is your answer to Utah-based Professor of Geological Sciences, Barry Bickmore, who recently suggested that today’s so-called climate “sceptics” are not like Galileo because, rather than fighting against one, they are fighting for an obscurantist and anti-intellectual Establishment, in an attempt to perpetuate the burning of fossil fuels for as long as possible?

Given the findings documented in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt, can you please tell me why, having fought for so long on behalf of the tobacco industry to prevent legislation to minimise the harmful effects of smoking, you have apparently focused instead on helping the fossil fuel lobby deny that anthropogenic climate disruption is happening?

———
Footnote:
At 28 mins and 30 seconds into this video of the talk, it can be clearly seen that Lindzen presented a slide with the steeply inclined Keeling ‘curve’ overlain with static or slightly-declining recent temperature data. This slide does not appear in the published PDF of this presentation. Why is this?

For the avoidance of any doubt about this, here is a screenshot of the “missing” slide as it appears in the video:

Misrepresentation of data?

Steeply inclined Keeling curve versus apparently non-correlating temperature - if you stretched the temperature axis enough it would appear to correlate quite well. Therefore this slide neither proves not disproves anything.

About these ads

166 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I too would like the Professor to explain a few things that I simply do not understand…

    1) Why is it that Professor Lindzen says the temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years? Where does he get this information from when the following facts may easily be found by any scientist:
    1880 – 13.73 c
    1890 – 13.75 c
    1900 – 13.74 c
    1910 – 13.72 c
    1920 – 13.83 c
    1930 – 13.96 c
    1940 – 14.04 c
    1950 – 13.98 c
    1960 – 13.99 c
    1970 – 14.00 c
    1980 – 14.18 c
    1990 – 14.31 c
    2000 – 14.51 c
    2010 – 14.70 c

    These are not temperatures from millions of years ago, not even thousands of years ago. Instead, they are recent temperatures from the last few hundred years; temperatures that correspond to a period in history which historians term as “The age of the machine”; a period when man-made machines have produced (and continue to produce) a phenomenal amount of heat which is continually being pumped into our surroundings. Considering that it took me just three days of hunting around the internet in order to collect these figures I would like an explanation as to exactly what kind of research did this man do that he completely missed mentioning these modern day figures which as one can clearly see show a steady climb in global temperatures?

    The atrocity of not revealing these figures is revealed when one considers that, when talking to Parliamentarians and lay-people as a whole, the Professor (along with many others) chooses to mention only irrelevant facts from pre-history that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on modern times and, by the way, as one can see from the figures, back in 1922 even the most dumbest of scientists could already see that the world was beginning to warm up.

    2) The professor also implied in his speech to Parliament: “that warming would reduce rather than increase tropical storms”.
    If that were the case then I am sure the professor would have had no problem in standing in front of Cyclone Yasi while explaining to it that according to his theory it was impossible for cyclones to grow to the size of a continent. Although I doubt if the world’s biggest cyclone “ever” would have agreed. However I will give the professor his due on this issue, as perhaps he has no idea that the whole world is not just the USA and that the Earth actually has a Southern Hemisphere containing, amongst others, the continent of Australia where a nation exists that has been blasted in recent times by many climate warming events which as well as Cyclone Yasi also include non-stop floods for the last two years …. of CONTINENTAL PROPORTIONS.

    3) The professor also says that “science is in the service of politics…”
    All I can say over such a whacky statement is that if such is the case then it can only be because there were no vacancies left in the tobacco industry :-(

    Donald

    28 February 2012 at 06:55

    • It would seem that Lindzen, like so many other deniers, is stuck trying to run down the up escalator… http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

      As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, in Storms of my Grandchildren, James Hansen’s comments about Lindzen are incisive. In the first Chapter of his book, Hansen recounts his first ever head-to-head encounter with Richard Lindzen, at the second meeting of Vice-President Cheney’s Climate Change Task Force in 2001. Based on this encounter, Hansen describes Lindzen as:
      – behaving like a lawyer by putting forward only information and argument favourable to his “client” (page 12); and
      – someone that does not seek truth because “a lawyer [merely] seeks a win for his client” (page 56).

      See my ‘How does James Hansen sleep at night?’ (27 October 2011); and my ‘Is Richard Lindzen the devil’s advocate?’ (4 November 2011).

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 09:38

    • Donald,

      Yes, we all play the “pick the data set that best makes our point” game.

      Taking your same data set from 1881 to 2011 the rise in global annual temperature average is .66 C.
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
      Of course, please feel free to correct any errors I have made, as it is the truth that is important. You don’t actually cite your data set however, so I am only assuming.

      John Kosowski

      28 February 2012 at 13:31

      • John, Can you please go back and read my letter to Lindzen: Just look at all the ways in which he has misrepresented the situation. His entire “there is no cause for alarm” thesis stands or falls on the issue of climate sensitivity. Yes there is uncertainty but, Lindzen is out on a limb; almost everybody thinks he is wrong and, if he is wrong, we are in serious trouble. Apart from that, his entire talk was an attempt to ignore the most important lesson we should learn from palaeoclimatology: i.e. that the Earth regulates its temperature using CO2. My attempt to redress this crucial omission resulted in me not being allowed to ask a question. Instead, Lindzen focussed on mocking our reliance on models, when we are not relying on models at all. Despite all this, fools like Delingpole, have gone away from the meeting – praising Lindzen to the skies and completely uncritically believing that everything Lindzen says is Gospel. This is insane.

        Martin Lack

        28 February 2012 at 13:54

      • “Just look at all the ways in which he has misrepresented the situation.” Yes Martin, I am looking. Can you list Lindzen’s misrepresentations? Then we can address them, if any, one by one.

        John Kosowski

        28 February 2012 at 15:18

        • John, you will be pleased to know I have taken the precaution of saving my initial comment on Dr Curry’s blog, just in case she should decide to delete it. I have also responded to your pathetic provocation as well, as I have nothing to hide and nothing to lose:

          In my humble opinion, the most blatantly hypocritical aspect to the presentation Lindzen gave was in the use of graphs. He claimed that “warmists” stretch the axes of graphs to make thing look more “alarming” than they actually are. However, he then used exactly the same technique to make the Keeling ‘curve’ appear not to correlate with temperature records over the short-term.

          As I said, this was just one of my many questions. Shall I now expect a Court Summons in the post? Somehow, I don’t think so…

          Martin Lack

          28 February 2012 at 15:28

      • John, some good points there … as I said, I hunted around the net and found them, they are every where…. the thing to note is that they are not them stupid “anomalies” which as every intelligent person will tell you only relate to prehistory because there are no temperature records for such periods …. but there are such temperature records for our modern era … records which skeptics choose not to publish.

        And if you care to look at them properly you will note that the temperatures are steadily climbing.

        By the way … it was done through my own research but you will find the same data but posted in an “anomaly manner” here:
        http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/average-annual-global-temperatures-and.html

        Donald

        29 February 2012 at 06:42

    • Donald,
      The statement about 15 years without warming is made on slide 11 where Lindzen states: “Looking at the above, one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. However, there are uncertainties in the above data, and small adjustments can result in negligible warming or cooling over this period. In the polarized public discourse, this leads each side to claim the other side is lying. However, Jones’ statement remains correct.”
      This is absolutely acknowledged by SkS:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
      Actual quote from Phil Jones BBC interview:
      “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

      Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

      John Kosowski

      28 February 2012 at 15:51

  2. I see Mr Lindzen is another Heartland Expert …. http://heartland.org/mr-richard-lindzen

    Am I wrong or is there a pattern beginning to show here? :-(

    Donald

    28 February 2012 at 11:49

    • Donald, I have had a very enlightening exchange of emails with Professor Michael Ashley (UNSW) in which he said “I get an awful lot of unsolicited email but yours was most definitely worth reading” However, he, like everyone else it seems, does not rate my chances of getting the Lindzen Illusions train de-railed… Nevertheless, I think John Cook’s Skeptical Science team are going to scrutinise my letter and may re-publish it…

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 11:58

  3. It may be useful to know who was in attendance at that ‘meeting in the Palace of Westminster’ and who thus need to be appraised of ‘The Professor’s’ obfuscations.

    I doubt that you will receive a satisfactory reply, if any, from ‘The Professor’ but good for you pursuing this matter. These people need to know that time is being called on their behaviour.

    Lionel A

    28 February 2012 at 12:05

    • Thanks Lionel. Apart from Lord Monckton (in the chair), I know that Northern Ireland’s ex-Environment Minister Sammy Wilson was there along with former Tory Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Lilley. I did not see him, but I would have expected Lord Lawson to have been there too.

      I have submitted a complaint to my MP about the waste of public money and potential interference in the UK political process that this meeting represents, which is a matter she has promised to take up with the new man in the DECC – Ed Davey. Also, as I am determined that all my research into Climate Change Scepticism in the UK will not be wasted, my MP has also now forwarded my MA Dissertation to Ed Davey asking him to insure that someone reads it – in the hope that no more Parliamentary time and money will be wasted having to deal with stunts pulled by people like Repealtheact.org.uk and the GWPF. We can but hope. However, these people should know now that I am on their case…

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 12:23

      • Wow

        I know Ed Davey from undergraduate days. He is a pretty nifty and pragmatic politician.In coalition with the Conservatives. And the chances of him banning GWPF (headed by the ex-Chancellor The Rt Hon Lord Lawson) from Parliament are diddly squat. Realpolitik says that if Nigel wants to hold a meeting in Parliament, Nigel gets to do so. Just as Tony would, or Gordon or John Major. Senior statesmen do not get banned from their own building. Even if you are ‘on their case’

        Suggest that rather than tilting at all these heavyweight windmills – to your inevitable disappointment – you spend a little time learning the trade first. Be much more discriminatory in your targets. And really really understand the arguments before launching yourself into battle. You just get a bloody nose by being so ill-prepared as you obviously are. The Lindzen example should be salutary here.

        Elsewhere somebody described your current approach as ‘scattergun religious’. And it’s just about as effective. You may occasionally pick up the odd flesh wound, but 99% of your effort is wasted – when not actually counter-productive. But as a serious player you need something far more frightening. And that requires work and study and planning.

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 07:00

  4. I am trying to track down a transcript of the Lindzen Whitehall baffle-gab without much luck (finding many links to the likes of WeUseWishfulThinking, UKIP – a somnolent bunch, The Curry House, Junk Science – how apt a name tsk, TASSC, etc.) but I did come across this consolation prize .

    Lionel A

    28 February 2012 at 12:35

    • I have a PDF copy of Lindzen’s presentation on 22 Feb – do you want me to email it to you?

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 12:48

      • There’s a PDF available by link from Judith Curry’s blog article about Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons – is this the one to which you refer?

        pendantry

        28 February 2012 at 14:15

        • Yes Colin. Thanks very much. Hopefully my comment will not get deleted. I have now publicly challenged Lindzen to either sue me or answer my questions…

          Martin Lack

          28 February 2012 at 14:33

    • Martin. Someone else (Mark) has pretty much stated that your question was incomprehensible at Climate Etc.

      I imagine, Ed Davey will pay about as much attention to your letter as I Imagine Prof Lindzen would, I Imagine they recieve rambling letters like this all the time.

      It was public meeting, who are YOU to decide if I should be allowed or not [to do what exactly? - ML]

      Barry Woods

      29 February 2012 at 11:45

  5. Your language is emotive, your motive suspect, your ideology hateful. Scientist you are not.

    Markus Fitzhenry

    28 February 2012 at 19:25

    • That comment is a fail on many levels: Your language is emotive; your motives unknown (and therefore suspect); and your assertions are unfalsifiable (apart from the latter – which is clearly false since I have a BSc in Geology and an MSc in Hydrogeology). Please try harder to construct an argument.

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 19:39

      • Hey I’ve got BSC Applied Chemistry, and and MSC Sytems Engineering, and a gold, Silver and Bronce swimming certificate.. your point is.

        Mark,(at Climate Etc) has even ‘better’ qualifications and is a bit puzzled by you.

        Barry Woods

        29 February 2012 at 11:49

      • If so, Barry, I suggest you start applying your chemistry and engineering knowledge to the study of the Earth’s climate because, for you to be fooled by what Lindzen says, suggests to me that you have so far failed to do either.

        Martin Lack

        29 February 2012 at 12:31

  6. You’re doing a Gleick as far as I can see (i.e. hurting the cause)

    Jaros Prlwytzkofsky

    28 February 2012 at 21:17

    • I am flattered. Gleick has sacrificed his career in the service of a greater cause – getting at the truth.

      Martin Lack

      28 February 2012 at 21:23

  7. “having fought for so long on behalf of the tobacco industry to prevent legislation to minimise the harmful effects of smoking” Martin, just doing a little research on Lindzen. How did he “fight for so long on behalf of the tobacco industry?” What legislation did he fight to prevent? Just asking. Thanks.

    John Kosowski

    28 February 2012 at 21:37

    • My words may have been a little emotive but I think their intent was clear – to establish a pattern of behaviour that demonstrates a tendency to deny any and/or all environmental problems where special interests are likely to suffer if sensible legislation is introduced:
      – In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.” (Guterl, F. (2001), ‘The Truth About Global Warming: The Forecasts Of Doom Are Mostly Guesswork, Richard Lindzen Argues–And He Has Bush’s Ear’, Newsweek, July 23, 2001).
      – In 2009, James Hansen recalled meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President’s Climate Task Force: “I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.” (Hansen, J. (2009), Storms of my Grandchildren, p.15).

      Please don’t bother picking me up on what I said, I have now explained myself.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 00:04

      • Well Martin, when it comes to libel, you really ought to consider choosing your words more wisely. To accuse someone of fighting on behalf of the tobacco industry to prevent legislation to minimize the harmful effects of smoking based on the evidence you cite is ridiculous. And when I say ridiculous, I mean you are opening yourself up to a libel action with very little defense. If I were you, I would retract that tobacco stuff unless you have real evidence, and just stick to the heart of your disagreement.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 00:21

        • I have invited Lindzen to sue me but, I think this is highly unlikely because:
          1. I am not the first to accuse him of such things; and
          2. I have no money so there would be nothing to gain from it and – from his perspective – much to lose.

          He will therefore almost certainly just ignore me, for the reasons previously stated.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 08:12

    • Martin,
      Your being judgment-proof is no justification to engage in slander. Besides, why would you say things about someone that you know aren’t true?

      John Kosowski

      29 February 2012 at 11:35

      • Check your dictionary. To slander someone, I would have actually had to speak the words.

        Martin Lack

        29 February 2012 at 12:15

      • Yes, Martin, excellent defense. You didn’t speak the words but you wrote them, which is why I advised you on libel in the first place. The lack of morality regarding the two, however, is the same.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 12:21

        • All I am asking is for Lindzen to explain himself. Whatever cherry-picked quote you care to throw back at me, John, taken as a whole, I have merely questioned why Lindzen says what he does; and why he appears to leave out information that does not help his cause. How can I be lying or accuse someone of lying if I don’t know what they actually think?

          Apart from that, I will not accept lectures on morality from someone who seeks to excuse the behaviour of purveyors of short-term, expensive, high-tech, highly toxic chemicals.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 12:43

  8. I have not looked at the temperature or CO2 data. The only data I have reviewed are on Admiralty charts going back 10-15 years and sea ice thickness data provided by US submariners. I have only investigated the physics of global temperature control but have not read widely on the matter of climate change or the reasons why it is thought not to be true. I have stood in front of a glacier in Svalbard that had receded 1 nautical mile in 10 years revealing an island not shown on the ten year old Admiralty chart. I have talked to US submariners about the depletion of multi year ice within the arctic sea ice. I have flown over glaciers in Greenland and observed the markings of their former heights on the mountains across which they flow and seen how they have reduced in height and withdrawn from the coast.

    Any one can do this. It is not hugely expensive to visit these places but it is extremely instructive. If you don’t have any money you can watch David Attenborough’s Frozen Planet TV series. Ice does not melt because it is getting colder or the temperature remains the same as 10 years ago. Polar warming is undeniable and easily verified. If you have any doubt about climate change go to the arctic. If your only concern is whether climatic change is natural or man made consider that those whose lives are increasingly affected will not be thinking overly much about the cause, only what can be done about it.

    Should we make an effort to reduce so called greenhouse gases? Heat only enters and leaves this planet by radiation because it sits in a vacuum that prevents conduction and convection. It can be shown in a laboratory that particular gases reduce the radiation from the planet. If we can increase the radiation from then the planet the polar temperatures will be reduced. If this increases the amount of sea ice then this will reflect heat from the sun back into space thereby preventing further warming.

    Is it worth the expense of doing so? All human activity stimulates the economy whether that activity is warfare or infrastructure change and renewal. What do you want to spend your money on? It can’t do any harm and may well stimulate a new form of economic growth that will reduce unemployment. There are other positive steps that could be taken but they won’t be taken for a few years yet until some more pain is felt.

    To argue against climate change is wilful stupidity. To argue that it is not caused by mankind and so no action need be taken is to miss the point that, made by us or not, we are the only creatures on the planet that can do anything about it and, most likely, we are the creatures that will be affected more than most.

    So forget the IPCC, forget the computer models, and ignore all pundits for one side or another and go to the North. Then remember the words of Flanders and Swan. “You can’t take heat from a cooler to a hotter, you can try it if you like but I think you’d better notter”.

    That is really all you need to know and use your eyes or someone else’s if yours don’t work too well.

    Pacific Weatherman

    29 February 2012 at 01:33

    • A great comment … I’ve always said it myself, CO2 and other gasses as well as the melting of ice and icebergs are only “effects/results” of an obvious cause .. HEAT ….much of which is produced by mankind through the age of machines … end of story.

      Donald

      29 February 2012 at 06:50

    • Yes, I can only echo Donald’s response. However, in my view, we are way, way beyond the point of having reasonable doubt about attribution. If we could pin culpability for anthropogenic climate disruption on one person (e.g. Dr S. Fred Singer), they would be convicted by any reasonable jury.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 08:01

    • Donald,

      Heat output by humans, even including nuclear reactors, is negligible.

      Sammy Osceola

      1 March 2012 at 11:48

      • Sammy, you may have to humour Donald on this one. Whilst I believe I am partly responsible for helping him acknowledge the problem of excess CO2 in our atmosphere, he continues to assert that HEAT (i.e. the consequence of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) is also contributing to our problems. As I have said to him, I don’t deny the logic; but neither am I qualified to determine its significance. Unlike supposed “sceptcs”; I recognise that there are limits to my own expertise.

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 12:07

      • The question is certainly worth asking, and there is some, mostly at night, namely the urban heat island effect. Again, the effect is in the immediate vicinity only, and has very little influence on the global average temperature.

        Sammy Osceola

        1 March 2012 at 12:16

  9. Martin – I too was there and have joined in at Climate Etc.. Why do you say this:
    “I was not allowed to ask questions but Prof. Lindzen kindly invited me to email them to him instead”… when you asked what was probably the longest question, which was discussed publicly? Your second question, later on, was cut short, due to limited time and others wanting to ask questions..

    Barry Woods

    29 February 2012 at 10:35

    • Hi Barry, Thanks for posting this here too; it will enable me to correct a crucial typing error and provide clarification:

      There are a number of errors in your recollection of events:
      1. Frustrated by Lindzen’s misleading discussion of palaeoclimatology, I attempted to make the point that the glacial-interglacial CO2/temp time lag proves nothing. The reason we have a problem is that – having changed the CO2 content of the atmosphere – temp must now change to restore radiative energy imbalance. Also Lindzen did not discuss my point – he obfuscated it.
      2. As I have indeed conceded to Lord Monckton on Simon Carr’s blog, it was understandable that the Chair would cut me off (especially as I was off-message) without letting me ask my first question.
      3. Neither you nor anyone else knows what my “second” question would have been as I was not allowed to ask it (but for the record it was less than 15 words).

      Do you think the guy next to you would understand now?

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 10:46

  10. Martin you do not correct your assertion in this article, that you were NOT Allowed to ask questions..

    You were, you asked a question..

    Why did you say you were not allowed to ask questions..
    Another person at the event, has made a similar observation at Climate etc.

    Barry Woods

    29 February 2012 at 11:39

    • As much as you would like to, Barry, you cannot re-write history. I was invited to ask a question but sought first to address Lindzen’s misdirection of the audience. I don’t know where you were sitting or what you could hear but, all I did was make a statement, which Lindzen then obfuscated with some fine-sounding words. I was then prevented from asking any questions. I never got to ask a question. End of story.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 12:11

      • Ok, Martin, so you were “allowed” to ask questions, but instead took your time to make a statement. Sounds like you prevented yourself from asking questions.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 12:16

        • Yeah, and it is a great shame Lindzen will not answer them either.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 12:22

      • So then, Martin, perhaps you should correct the untrue assertion that you weren’t allowed to ask questions above. The truth is important here, Martin.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 12:24

        • You know where you can shove your “truth” John; and your Good Cop-Bad Cop routine. You have really shown your true colours over on Judith Curry’s blog haven’t you? Do you feel emboldened by being surrounded by your “friends”?

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 12:35

      • Well Martin, it is getting pretty obvious that you don’t care about truth.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 12:40

        • Neither do you. Actually no, I do care about the truth; all you seem to care about is twisting my words to support your version of the truth.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 12:44

  11. Barry, you are trying to sidetrack the issues into an irrelevant ‘he said’ ‘she said’.

    Whatever, I find it indicative that you accuse Martin of uttering a rambling question when of course ‘The Good Professor’ never rambles, often amongst the weeds, with his arguments. Arguments and questions on such a complex, many discipline subject, often appear to ramble to those not familiar with the nuances of the science.

    Also pay heed to the comments of Pacific Weatherman, we already know Lindzen is wrong. Do you understand the import of the fact that the Greenland ice cap surface altitude has reduced?

    Lionel A

    29 February 2012 at 12:05

    • Lionel,
      Where specifically is Lindzen wrong?

      John Kosowski

      29 February 2012 at 12:15

      • What, you mean, apart from on Climate Sensitivity?

        Martin Lack

        29 February 2012 at 12:57

      • Lindzen was wrong to append his name to this WSJ article where this egregious statement, one among a number of such was made:

        Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

        Lindzen must know that the above is far short of the truth, if he does not then he is no longer engaging with science.

        Climategate has been done to death,. Temperature records show that there has been significant warming this century with much of the heat being taken up by the oceans and melting of the cryosphere. You are aware of the concepts of latent heat and heat capacity I suppose. Think why ice is put into cold drinks. Tenberth’s statement has been twisted out of context. As was that of Jones, in a BBC interview with Roger Harrabin, when Jones alluded to not statistically significant warming (at the 95% level).

        Climatologists, contrary to popular belief spun by Pat Michaels and Lindzen, do not rely upon climate models alone to inform them about the processes of warming which are already under-way. There are signals from changing atmospheric and ocean currents (take off the SE corner of Australia for example), precipitation patterns, from biological and ecological systems and from the cryosphere to name but a few. Anybody who tries to nay-say all this is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance or displaying just plain mendacity.

        That WSJ article was appalling in its lack of honesty about the real nature of what we are facing as a follow up letter made clear .

        I am still picking my way through the pdf of Lindzen’s presentation but already find that there is nothing new, but then I did watch and read his testimony before the US Science Committee a couple of years back – about 18 months and will dig that out for comparison, that has not been debunked here .

        Bottom line is that we do have much to worry about as the food chain become disrupted by ecological and ecosystem disruption, warmer damper conditions allow some disease vectors new opportunities aided by mass evacuations of strife torn areas of the world. Such strife being caused by shortages of food, water or other resources.

        You may, like the wealthy in London in the late 19th century who also suffered although not so much from the outbreak of cholera,, think you are immune to the effects from such as described in that last paragraph but just consider that you don;’t know if there are illegal immigrants living in squalor in shanties built in gardens within built up areas.

        When our ports are disabled by rising waters and the airlines can no longer afford fuel, how are the med’s to combat disease, or the chemicals required for their manufacture, going to get through to you. If the Greenland ice cap suddenly goes into more rapidly accelerating melt the oceans could rise quite rapidly. The slight drop in the rate of sea level rise in the last 12 months or so was due to the deposition of huge quantities of rain water on land. That is a brief part of the hydrological cycle which will restore rise as the waters make their way to the sea.

        The rise in sea levels from Greenland ice cap loss would likely float the West Antarctic ice mass and decouple it from the rock allowing in the warmed waters from under the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and increasing the melt rate there. Then we humans are in dire trouble. Such scenarios can rapidly unfold once certain, unknown but expected, tipping points are crossed. Maybe the reduction in multi year Arctic sea ice will be enough as the albedo changes and permafrost thaws expelling methane.

        I often cite sources on oceanography for the rounded approach to earth science and one such is Tom Garrison’s excellent ‘Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science’. The sciences of climate change should not be compartmentalised, it is a multidisciplinary study. This is a tenet with which readers of Feynman (especially his three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’) will be familiar.

        Sure the 1% may manage to hold out longer than most but eventually that 1% will run out of artisans and others to service their needs.

        Of course if you have any bones to pick then show them.

        Lionel A

        29 February 2012 at 16:38

  12. Getting facts straight. Is not side tracking. You were allowed to ask question, you just made a mess of it, Lindzen did try to get to what you were on about.

    Why not clearly list, concisely, your three questions here. I’m sure that Mark would be interested as we both thought they were incomprehensible.

    Barry Woods

    29 February 2012 at 13:25

    • Since we have established, Barry, that I messed-up my first attempt to ask a question; and was not permitted a second attempt. Why do you continue to mock me by saying “we both thought they were incomprehensible”?

      My 3 pre-prepared questions are all shown above (i.e. the final three). Why should I waste my time copying them here for you? Your bear-faced attempt to waste my time almost beggars belief.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 13:41

      • I did say to do so concisely.. this is not mocking, but criticisingly
        I also note you have not yet corrected your article above.

        Which states you were not allowed to ask questions.

        Barry Woods

        29 February 2012 at 14:59

      • OK Barry, job done. I hope you are happy now… Modified opening paragraph reads as follows:
        “…guest speaker. Unfortunately, as a result of frustration with what I saw as Lindzen’s failure to explain the relevance of palaeoclimatology to our understanding of the way in which the Earth regulates its temperature, I blew my chance to ask a question. However, Prof. Lindzen…”

        Now perhaps you will address yourself to the substance of my critique of what Lindzen did and did not say? Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation. In fact, I suspect I shall never hear form you again; because you will probably now just walk away and tell the world you won your little argument (although you failed to address the physical realities of life on Earth).

        Martin Lack

        29 February 2012 at 15:39

      • Actually, Martin, Barry congratulated you for fixing your error. Is it really necessary to call his argument “stupid?”

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 17:35

        • No it wasn’t. I have expunged it. However, I did not go to Curryworld to debate with people whose minds are closed – I went to try and elicit a response from Lindzen. Therefore, having apparently failed to do that, I doubt I will go back. I have told it to you and them straight. Clearly neither you nor they are ever going to like people who do that. But, as I think I have said to you before, give it 5 to 10 years – and we will know who was right.

          You may continue to claim I accused Lindzen of lying. That will be your choice but, I am content that all I sought was clarification of why he says what he does (and chooses not to say a great deal more). I still think he is, at very least, guilty of hypocrisy and, if he is not being deceitful then, at worst, he has a bad case of tunnel vision.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 18:06

  13. [Cross-posted from Judith Curry's blog]

    That’s an interesting reaction from Martin Lack, who complains in his comment of February 28, 2012 at 9:31 am that “ .. I was there. In an attempt to address one of the many misrepresentations or omissions of relevant facts, i was prevented from actually asking a question .. ”.

    Contrary to what Martin says, Barry Woods nor Mark Brandon were not just being pedantic, they were correcting a blatant misrepresentation of the fact, a common trait among CACC supporters. I too was at the meeting and after an excellent presentation by Professor Lindzen only a few minutes were available for questions before the next scheduled meeting (the 21 Committee) was due to start at 16:00. Many of us were eager to put our own but there wasn’t time, therefore Martin should think himself lucky that he was able to ask one question. Because of time constraints meeting chairman Lord Monckton correctly did not allow Martin to hog the Q&A period but gave an opportunity to as many others as possible.

    After the meeting I E-mailed organiser Fay Kelly-Tuncay with “ .. I’d like to get names for, including the questioner who Lord Monckton had to persuade to stop .. ”. She advised that it was Martin and having seen his Linked-In profile (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/martin-lack/5/170/801) and read some of his articles on his blog (http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/about/) I think that I understood his staunch support for the CACC hypothesis. If I was an unemployed environmental consultant specialist in Environmental Politics I’d be very worried about the increasing global scepticism about CACC, just as many other similarly qualified individuals must be, especially those employed in “non-jobs” by local and national governments.

    After reading Martin’s comment to one Keith Battye that “ .. your entire problem is that you think the science is not settled when it was – effectively – settled by Hansen in 1988 .. ” my suspicion is that Martin’s sole reason for attending the meeting was not to learn anything from Professor Lindzen but to promote the CACC propaganda.

    Perhaps if Martin is “ .. genuinely only after the truth .. ” then it’s time that he removed his environmentalist blinkers and took a look at the real world, starting with http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sebastianjer/comment.html?entrynum=124&page=1 then at my comment today at Tony Newbery’s “A matter of timing” thread (http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=541). After that he could do a lot worse that read Christopher Booker’s “The BBC and Climate Change: a Triple Berayal” (http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf)

    As for his suggestion that James Hansen’s simple climate “ .. model is shown to be accurate .. this is called model validation .. ”, once again he is completely wrong. No climate model has been subjected to professional and independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures. All attempts at validation are made by the model developers or users themselves, not by independent VV&T specialists.

    Of course I could have totally misinterpreted the data that I have found so if anyone considers that I have made misleading statements then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not an apology is warranted.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley
    [snip]

    peteridley

    29 February 2012 at 17:58

    • Thank you for being moderately polite, Peter. As I have just explained to JK (or whatever his real name is), I did not visit Curryworld to have an argument, I visited solely to try and force Lindzen to engage with my criticisms of his talk. Therefore, you people can say what you like about me (you re-write history and invert reality everyday so why should you stop now?). It will change nothing, unless Lindzen pays you a visit, neither will I.

      As for this ludicrous argument over words, which is just a smoke-screen for not dealing with my criticisms of Lindzen’s entirely one-sided presentation, I have modified the wording on my blog to shut you all up. However, that does not change the fact that, even though it was partly or wholly my fault, I did not get to ask a question. You could say, “we were both right”.

      You can carry on calling me a liar if it makes you feel better but, as I said, you will not entice me back with any provocations. If necessary, you will have to see the world as you think it is; and so will I. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be long before the game will be up; and we will know who was right. Let’s just leave it there shall we?

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 18:20

  14. You say you wanted Prof. Lindzen to respond. So you made a big song and dance at Judith Curry’s blog? This seems like a very odd action to take. Why not just send your questions to Lindzen? AFAIK Prof. Lindzen never even reads JC’s blog, let alone writes there. Very very odd.

    Latimer Alder

    29 February 2012 at 18:27

    • You really don’t read things very carefully do you, Latimer! I know it is very long (i.e. twice as long as my normal self-imposed word limit), but this post makes it clear that that is exactly what I did. Furthermore, this post also makes clear one or two things are slightly modified from the email Lindzen received last Thursday (as a result of a subsequent exchange of emails I had with him in which he pointedly did not answer any of my questions). Finally, in an attempt to make it less-onerous for him to respond, this post makes clear that I also emailed Lindzen the list of 17 statements which went live 24 hours after this post did. This was all made perfectly clear in my original posting in Curryworld (may be you missed that too?)

      However, I have not heard anything further from Lindzen and I don’t expect to. I believe I have already made clear why I take this view (but perhaps you failed to read that as well?). So, like I have said to others, you can say what you like about me if it makes you feel any the wiser but, I think you should know, all the evidence suggests you are picking a fight with both history and science; and it is not going to end well.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 18:42

  15. I read exactly what you said and fully understood it. But you still provide no explanation as to how or why you believed that making a hoohah at JC’s blog would have any influence whatsoever. Unless it was just attention seeking.

    And, just as a matter of interest, if I e-mailed you 17 loaded questions, would you expect to answer them?

    Latimer Alder

    29 February 2012 at 19:09

    • Latimer, despite the libelous things JK and others have said about me over the last 24-36 hours, I am nothing if not honest. So, yes, I heard that Dr Curry had posted a lengthy commentary on Lindzen’s talk; and I thought it might be a good place to try make it harder for Lindzen to ignore me (which of course he is doing). You may call them “loaded questions”; but they only arise as a result of the extent to which Lindzen’s talk paints an inaccurate picture of the situation.

      Oh, and one more thing you can report back to all your friends in Curryworld, it is totally inaccurate for Peter Ridley to describe me and/or my blog being focussed on a single-issue – unless of course that single issue in the Environment (the clue is in the title). What I mean is, in case you hadn’t noticed – climate change is not the only problem we face. But, derrrr, how could I be so stupid, these problems don’t exist, do they!

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 19:33

      • Libelous? Like what? Do you know that it is libelous to falsely accuse someone of libel?
        Please list specifically what I have done to libel you. If I made any errors, I will gladly retract them immediately.
        As far as Linzden ignoring you, what do you expect? You alienated him. And your questions of him are not the questions you should be asking. Asking him about Barry Bickmore? That is absurd.
        To be honest, Martin, no one is against you. But you walked into this. You are the one calling names and making accusations. Do you realize that? I have just been asking you questions. Where is the misrepresentation? How did Lindzen support tobacco?, etc.
        You need to take a step back and look at all of this with a clear head.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 19:46

        • John. Set free from the confines of this site, you have spent the last 30 hours or so, baiting me into contradicting myself and joining-in pathetic arguments about who was responsible for my being prevented from asking a question at a meeting. For someone who says they don’t bow to authority you sure seem remarkably willing to worship at the Temple of Lindzen.

          Yes, you are right, all of my questions were very carefully crafted such that Lindzen would be forced to expose where his scientific objectivity ends and his ideological prejudice takes over. But for you to turn round now and seek to lecture me on supposedly being disrespectful to an authority figure! That is so deeply hypocritical, I can barely believe you have the audacity to come here and say it.

          I have explained myself to you enough so, if you post one more comment anywhere on this site about Lindzen/Tobacco or DDT, you will be blacklisted. Therefore, if you wish to retain access to this site, I think it is you that needs “to take a step back and look at all of this with a clear head”.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 20:05

      • “Set free from the confines of this site, you have spent the last 30 hours or so, baiting me into contradicting myself and joining-in pathetic arguments about who was responsible for my being prevented from asking a question at a meeting.”
        Martin, it is you that initiated all of the contradictions. I didn’t say that you were prevented from asking a question. I didn’t say that Lindzen made misrepresentations or anything else that you said. When you did say something about charts, I carefully looked at the material and responded to you, asking you more questions.
        I am not saying you have to worship Lindzen, but if you want to engage him, there is a certain civilized level of discourse in which you must stay. That doesn’t mean you aren’t free to blow a hole in his argument, if you can. But your shotgun religious approach just wasn’t effective.
        Asking him to agree that climate skeptics aren’t Galileo is just a silly, absurd waste of time. For starters, Lindzen makes one great case. And he knows his stuff. So you can’t just throw cliche’s at him. You have to find out where he is missing something on the science. Aeresols? Models? Something like that. Instead you just accuse him of helping the fossil fuel lobby like you did me when I first asked a question of you. “I hope that helps clear up the fossil fuel lobby induced fog” or something to that effect. That stuff, besides not being true, gets you nowhere.
        If you think LIndzen was misrepresenting something, call him on it! Just don’t say that he is, and then not say how. Now you are accusing me of libeling you, but you won’t specifically say how. You keep doing that to yourself.
        Try this. Think of a friend that is objective that isn’t caught up in AGW. Have them read some of your discourse and see if they will give you some constructive criticism You will find that they will tell you many of the things that I am trying to tell you.
        And do you know what else, Martin? Enough of your threats. They are cowardly. You can’t bully your way into the truth on this one.

        John Kosowski

        29 February 2012 at 20:35

        • Well, I’d like to say how much I enjoyed our discussions, but I can’t. If you think Lindzen “knows his stuff”, when he is so clearly at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists well, that just demonstrates how little you know and/or how bad a judge of character you are.

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 21:29

  16. Hello Martin,

    I read one of your comments in the Judith Curry Website ‘Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons’ regarding the “mostly unnecessarily-hostile” comments directed at you. All I can say is that I sympathize. Any time I’ve attempted to engage in “debate” with a AGW skeptic, I encounter the same sort of thing. Turns out I beat my wife and drown little kittens…

    I think I’ll loiter here for a while; and pick up some honest information in a more comfortable reading and commenting environment.

    Good luck in your continuing efforts to inform the misinformed and find gainful employment.

    Peter Goodman

    Peter Goodman

    29 February 2012 at 19:48

    • You are most kind, Peter; and very welcome. However, you may have to put up with the person known as JK (or just ignore him).

      UPDATE (2130 GMT): – No you won’t have to put up with him. After wasting my time for nearly 4 weeks, I finally plucked up the courage to take control of my own blog and blacklisted him.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 19:51

  17. Does it not occur to you that you would present your case far more effectively by actually stating simply and clearly where you think Prof. Lindzen is wrong?

    It is entirely clear that no senior figure – of whatever persuasion – is ever going to spend their time writing answers to 17 questions – especially when they are as obscure as

    ‘sceptics are always going down the up escalator’ and
    ‘soon we will have to rename the Glacier National Park’

    Either you are deluded enough to imagine that Lindzen has been eagerly awaiting these and relishing the opportunity to reply. Or that by publishing this list at Climate Etc you will somehow enhance your reputation. If the former, I fear you will be sadly disappointed. If the latter, then it must be obvious to you by now that you have done no such thing. You reputation (non-existent before your intervention) is now strongly into negative territory.

    As to ‘my friends at Curryworld’, I am not sure that I have any. Had you stayed around for more than 24 hours and contributed to more than one thread, you would have learnt that it is a place for robust and direct debate – with very very little moderation other than self-moderation. There are no sacred cows, nor sacred people or sacred institutions. No prisoners are taken and you need to be able to defend your position as strongly as you make it. It is a genuinely ‘sceptical’ place. ‘Prove it, show me, where, when, what ,why, how, who?’ are the essential tools of discussion – from all sides of the discussion. From the arch-warmists to the deep-sceptics. That is what keeps it lively.and stimulating.

    But unfortunately you chose to dive straight in with immediate and loud appeals to authority (your own and others). And when challenged on these you couldn’t back them up. You asserted that you had been ‘prevented from asking a question’. And yet we have testimony from others there that you were indeed the first questionner, but made a hash of it. I imagine it was one of your lengthy rambling statements rather than an actual question. Bad mistake

    And so, you found that, despite all the early bragadoccio (to paraphrase ‘right then you ignorant stupid sceptics, I’m here to teach you a thing or two’), you couldn’t deliver the goods. Lots of brave words, but when the time came to see the sausage not the sizzle it wasn’t there. Too much hanging around only with people who agree with you has made your arguments flabby and weak.

    Latimer Alder

    29 February 2012 at 20:19

    • Can I ask you please to keep your opinions of me to yourself; and I will try and do likewise. As I said upon my departure from the Curry House, unless people in general are willing to accept the reality that the Environment is not a stick with which Socialists are trying to beat them into submission, my debating with them will always be a waste of time. Just look at that ridiculous comment of JK’s (the very last thing upon which I commented). I have spent 3 or 4 weeks trying to reason with him; and he hasn’t listened to a single word I have said. Moreover, his generally pleasant manner was and is a complete sham. If anyone could actually be bothered to investigate, I am a Conservative voter, I believe in low taxes (apart from Carbon taxes), small government, and a big society. I am living proof that James Delingpole’s Watermelon analogy is a fallacy.

      My email to Lindzen was too long. I accept that. You may feel it was rambling and incoherent but, you are viewing it through the filter of your own prejudice. Although its overall structure is dictated by the notes I took in response to listening to Lindzen’s talk, it was also very carefully worded. Every single one of my questions or statements challenges an aspect of the way in which, irrespective of intent, Lindzen misleads his audiences; and also therefore illustrates an aspect to people’s consequential misperception of reality… People walk away from listening to him, thinking ‘everything is rosy’ but this is a delusion; and I cannot fathom how he – or anyone else – can still buy-into it. IMHO, you really are “fiddling while Rome burns”… Why is it that so many of the people who spend so much time telling us we can’t trust “experts” are so willing to uncritically accept everything a “friendly” expert like Lindzen says? It is all so very convenient (and deeply hypocritical), it beggars belief.

      I don’t want to debate the science; that debate was over decades ago (just as it was with regard to the dangers of smoking cigarettes). However, with the advantage of my MA, I am trying to help people see the psychology and the politics that underlies the denial of all our environmental problems. Therefore, you can continue to insult me if it makes you feel better but, sooner or later I will blacklist you if you do. However, I repeat, I entered the Curry House being deliberately controversial – I wanted to publicise my criticism of Lindzen’s talk and counteract the cult of Lindzen worship that seems to surround him (at least in your world) – It was never my intention to waste time endlessly debating well-rehearsed, yet repeatedly-debunked, arguments referencing cherry-picked data. That’s what Lindzen does. Hansen nailed him as behaving like a lawyer who only presents data favourable to his “client”: In the past he may have appeared as a witness for the tobacco industry; whereas today, directly or indirectly it matters not, his “client” is very clearly the fossil fuel lobby. Don’t demand the evidence from me, the evidence is all around you. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

      I suspect you will think this just yet more evidence of pomposity; but that will be your problem – not mine.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 21:18

  18. Martin, it is a real shame that I had no idea you were going to attend Professor Lindzen’s speech, otherwise I would have told you that one of the most obvious (and most used) methods used by those who push the climate denial message when they invite a guess speaker is to always make sure the speaker begins at such a time and makes a speech of such duration that there is never enough time at the end of the speech for anybody to ask more that a few quick questions; and should there be enough time then the speaker will either take his time answering the first few questions or some pre-paid stooge in the audience will always be on hand to kick into the fray and push the whole thing along so as to waste what little time is left.

    In any case, take it from a friend that I really hope that in future you will learn to do a bit of research into the means, methods and motivations of those who not only make speeches but also the means, motivations and methods of those who pay for the speakers to make their speeches. In any case, a long time ago, who do you think was paying for such speakers to make their speeches? Is it possible that something similar happened in Parliament not too long ago?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
    Perhaps the link above might show you that there are times when the speaker truly believes what he is saying, after all, being intelligent while at the same time showing the intelligence of a brick is not a hard thing to do in science. Sometimes such people mean well, but are used by others, be they groups or corporations in order to further an agenda the speaker might know absolutely nothing about. After all again, the fact that a speaker might wish to sound intelligent while it is clear that he has the intelligence of a brick is more than perfect for those who might send him or her to make speeches.

    Now, give up on the bar stewards and continue with your original mission which was to convince others that Global Warming was a reality. And don’t worry too much about court cases. Anyone that hassles you for a court case better be ready for your friends as well, especially the ones who already know who is who; and what they are up to; and are willing to open any back door required to take a look in and see what is within hand’s reach. :-)

    Donald

    29 February 2012 at 21:31

    • Just a bit more to give you a giggle:

      Is it not true that it is doubt and confusion the sceptics wish to sow? Then what better method than to let a brick make a speech because at the end of the day … nobody cares what a brick has to say …. but they sure are left wondering exactly how a brick can make a speech. :-)

      Donald

      29 February 2012 at 21:38

    • Thanks for your concern Donald. However, there is no getting around the fact that I spent a lot of time crafting 3 questions from which there was no easy escape. Unfortunately, I then invited being interrupted without asking a question because I treated the whole thing like a debate: I tried to address Lindzen’s failure to acknowledge the way in which the Earth has regulated its temperature in the past (with CO2 lagging behind temperature); and why we therefore know that, having increased the CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature increase is inevitable. Having established that, the only other debate left to have is over climate sensitivity.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 21:44

      • You might have been better off throwing a “brick” at the man :-)

        Donald

        29 February 2012 at 21:50

        • Is your old email address working again (…one easy way to find out)?
          Have you recently received any from me via any other route?

          Martin Lack

          29 February 2012 at 21:59

        • No, all my emails have been hacked and destroyed in this little war I’m going through at the moment, someone out there is out to find me … they don’t like the fact that I’m dropping info and links about them all over the place :-(

          I’ll send you a new one tonight.

          Donald

          1 March 2012 at 04:28

    • That pbs.org link is excellent Donald. Thank-you.

      In his reply to me, threatening me not to publish this 1800-word email, Lindzen mentioned Gelbspan as being something I should be wary of repeating or seeming to allude to; so it is nice now to see what he was on about.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 21:55

    • @donald

      How many seminars have you been to that have not had a set finish time? Especially those for busy people (MPs) in a very busy building – The Houses of Parliament.

      Your complaint seems to be that ‘deniers’ are the only people who try to keep to a schedule. And that they alone give the majority of the allocated time to the guest speaker, not to the Q&A. I’m sure that you’d be rightly disappointed if you turned up to hear Prof. Lindzen for a couple of hours but ended up with just the Martin and Latimer laugh-in.

      Your complaint about ‘deniers’ is pretty much ridiculous. It applies to all meetings anywhere.

      Latimer Alder

      1 March 2012 at 06:34

      • Latimer, I have already answered Donald for you. His point was not really valid because, quite clearly, enough time was given for questions in this instance. Can we please stop arguing about this now?

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 07:52

  19. Martin

    Wow, really wow. Just a few comments

    ‘With the advantage of my MA I am trying to help people see the psychology and the politics that underlies the denial of all our environmental problems.’.

    Happy to swap Masters degrees with you, Mine is in Atmospheric Chemistry. We are used to working through the evidence for things and devising experiments to prove/disprove them. And yours is I believe something to do with a ‘critique of scepticism’ or something..?

    ‘I don’t want to debate the science; that debate was over decades ago’

    Ahh. ‘The Science is Settled’. Seems rather a strange thing to turn up at a well known debating blog haunted by sciency types with the fixed idea that ‘the science is settled’. But I think you were soon disabused of that notion anyway.

    ‘the cult of Lindzen worship that seems to surround him (at least in your world)’

    No Lindzen worship in my world. Nor worship of any other person, institution or supposed being. But he does make some good points in a civil manner and you would do better to respond in kind rather than wittering on about irrelevancies like tobacco.

    ‘Don’t demand the evidence from me, the evidence is all around you’

    Seems pretty clear by our earlier discussions that your beliefs are faith based, not evidence based. Your grasp of the evidence is pretty minimal at best and even I could make a better fist of arguing the alarmist case than you did. Your whole stance seems to be make unsupported assertions from authority and then to avoid defending them. And it also seems that while you are very happy to hold a megaphone and shout insults at others, you are very uncomfortable when challenged to justify your assertions. It fits the profile of your earlier life as an evangelical christian with a mission to convert the heathen, You have just transferred to a different belief system.

    And finally, you say

    ‘As I said upon my departure from the Curry House, unless people in general are willing to accept the reality that the Environment is not a stick with which Socialists are trying to beat them into submission, my debating with them will always be a waste of time.’

    Now, I’ve looked diligently through all your remarks posted at Climate Etc, and I can’t find one that remotely makes that point. Have I missed it, or is this another case where your faith has overtaken the evidence? You believe that you posted it so you did? Despite the evidence to the contrary? Happy to be corrected if I have indeed overlooked it.

    Latimer Alder

    29 February 2012 at 21:58

    • Latimer, if you will not belittle my qualifications I will not belittle yours (although I would have expected more objectivity from someone with a Masters Degree like yours; which genuinely sounds very relevant). You can read the 300-word abstract of my dissertation just like anyone else on my ‘About’ page (it even explains what is meant by the term “discourse analysis”). Indeed, if I thought you might actually read it (and not circulate my email address) I would send the whole thing to you as a PDF; but I think you would be more likely to get struck by lightning.

      Again, if you think the science is not settled, you have been listening to the Merchants of Doubt for too long. Until you recognise this fact, there is not much I can do to help you. The same people that told it was OK to smoke cigarettes, spray organic pesticides on your strawberries, etc., etc., have been trying desperately hard for 25 years to perpetuate doubt about something over which there is now very little residual uncertainty. To continue to deny this requires the invocation of global scientific and/or political conspiracy (or stupidity) on an unprecedented scale. Until you can see this, I cannot help you.

      This is why debate is pointless: My grasp of your “evidence” may be minimal; but so is your grasp on reality. However, there is no point me quoting the evidence because it is all part of your “conspiracy”.

      Although it seems fairly routine over in the Curry House, I don’t much care for the feigned humility but, since you ask, that final quote was not verbatim; so it is not surprising that you could not find it. I’m sorry if I sent you on a wild goose chase. What I was alluding to may be found in paragraph 2 of my penultimate comment addressed to all (i.e. not the reply to JK), where I said: “…by the nature of your responses, the majority of you are deeply ideologically prejudiced against accepting the reality of all the environmental problems we face. But that does not mean they do not exist.” Maybe if you read it a few times you will see that it actually makes the same point (even though it does not use the same words)? I don’t just cut and paste stuff from place to place – I am actually thinking about it and typing it myself (in a genuine attempt to help you). If this is not appreciated, you are always free to ignore me but, please, don’t make me repeat myself like JK always seemed to do.

      Martin Lack

      29 February 2012 at 22:46

    • Dear Latimer,

      Now that we seem to have got our interaction on to a mutually-respectful footing, would you care to apologise for mocking my honesty regarding my faith (and doubt) in God; purely in order to take a cheap shot at Environmentalism as being a new religion (especially as this contravenes Moderation policy on Judith Curry’s blog)?

      Although I am not going to contribute further on Dr Curry’s blog, simply because I refuse to discuss the issues with people who show little or no ability to listen, who use diversionary tactics to avoid inconvenient information, and/or use personal smears to reduce the notice taken of other people’s comments, I would very much appreciate it if you could retract this comment or at least apologise for it on Dr Curry’s blog?

      Thank you in anticipation,

      Martin.

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 12:59

      • I don’t see the mockery. Many people believe things based on faith. Like religion. If your belief system is faith based, it is hard to have a reasoned conversation. But that is not mockery. Especially since you don’t want to discuss the underlying scientific facts that others would require to justify those beliefs. Perhaps you believe that humanity is inherently incompatible with the environment. Just browsing your articles on meritocracy, growth, consumerism, modernism might lead one to that conclusion. And, in many of those articles, you just state that those things are bad without explanation. That tends to imply a faith based belief system. Again, it is not mockery, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

        Sammy Osceola

        1 March 2012 at 13:08

        • If you equate concern over ACD as a belief system there is no point my talking to you. Ditto, if you wish to deny that the human population is causing stress to the Earth’s ecosytems; and/or that there are no limits to those systems’ ability to deal with the waste we produce.

          You have not read my blog; you have merely gone on a fishing trip to feed your preconceptions of me as anti- this or that, which is facile and pathetic.

          By seeking to equate such concerns with religious belief you are not indulging in rational debate. You are asking to be labelled as a time-waster and we now know what happens to them, don’t we?

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 14:21

      • Nope. Sorry, Latimer. This is my blog. My rules. Goodbye.

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 14:35

      • I await your response Sammy. Either acknowledge this is an illegitimate line of argument, or you’re history.

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 15:07

      • I thought we were talking about whether Latimer was mocking you I didn’t see it. Do I get blacklisted for that?

        Sammy Osceola

        2 March 2012 at 10:51

        • Sammy, don’t make me conclude that you are even more infantile than I already thought you were. I will not rise to you stupid provocation. I am well aware of Latimer’s suggestion you all file in here to see if you can get blacklisted.* I think I made my point but, if not, there is no grounds for equating faith in God (something science cannot prove) with faith in ACD (something science has proven beyond reasonable doubt):
          “It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.” George Monbiot (10 May 2005)

          * Having said all that, I would be perfectly entitled to blacklist anyone who is just coming here to waste my time (so I am not saying it won’t happen).

          Martin Lack

          2 March 2012 at 11:01

  20. Latimer and John

    Leaving aside your criticism of Martin’s debating technique what is your view of the rapid ice melting in the polar regions?

    Pacific Weatherman

    1 March 2012 at 00:33

    • Lots of rocks for the scotch? :-)

      Seriously, though …. a depletion of the ozone hole above the pole plus a series of volcanic events beneath the polar ocean has combined with Climate warming to accelerate a decay of the ice in the Arctic …. thankfully the now much warmer atmosphere has aided the evaporation of the moisture which has in turn changed the northern winds in a (westerly?) direction which in turn has had the resultant effect of dumping all the moisture both in Europe and Nth America as SNOW …. otherwise New York would be X feet underwater.

      In the Southern Hemisphere some of this moisture has come through the Northern Territory of Australia as well as coming through the Pacific and into the Philippines giving rise to massive floods of proportions unequal in their scope … although it must be said that the South does receive such amounts of rain every 15 or so years, the difference this time has been that with so much moisture in the air … there have been massive floods in just about every country affected by the Asian monsoon system.

      Both the snows in the North and the floods in the South have had drastic effects on our way of life as well as killing a few hundred people but as the warmer air higher up in the atmosphere pushes and concentrates the colder lower air into areas of coalescence this will have the effect in the Northern Winter next year of killing thousands of people across Europe and America …. it will however make Australia a lot greener while leaving homeless thousands in the South East Asia region.

      And no, I’m not joking … :-(

      Donald

      1 March 2012 at 04:24

      • @donald

        So when the NH snow melts later this spring/summer you confidently predict that NYC will be under x feet of water? If not, why not?

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 04:58

    • John is now blacklisted; and it seems Latimer is headed that way too: If it is good enough as a moderation rule in the Curry House moderation; it is good enough here – If you insult people by reference to something they did not actually say you will not last long here.

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 07:14

      • I don’t know that anybody has ever been blacklisted at Judith’s place. It is tolerant of an extremely wide range of views, and of means of expression of those views. From your day-long visit, can you provide any example where somebody has been so disciplined?

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 07:27

        • Latimer, it seems you (as per Donald and JK before him) also struggle to hit the correct Reply button. I will not condescend to tell you how to do it but, please be more careful – as we end up with comment spaghetti otherwise. JK is blacklisted here, not in the Curry House. Tolerance is not always a virtue – that is yet another aspect to ‘the marketplace of ideas’ fallacy.

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 08:45

  21. @ML

    I think you sum up the complete pointlessness of this discussion here;

    ‘This is why debate is pointless: My grasp of your “evidence” may be minimal; but so is your grasp on reality. However, there is no point me quoting the evidence because it is all part of your “conspiracy”.’

    Our world views are so divergent as to be apparently incapable of being reconciled. Mine is based on observational evidence and the scientific way of doing things, You, however reject this idea as ‘all part of (my) conspiracy’ and claim that I have only a minimal grasp of ‘reality’. Presumably, therefore, you believe that you have other ways of understanding reality. JFI what are they? How do you come to an understanding – which in your case is very passionately held – without using the evidence? I know of no other way, but I guess you do.

    FWIW I am no great believer in actual conspiracies about anything. Especially big ones involving hundreds or thousands of people. I know form my own experience that it is difficult enough to keep a very small group of people working together on the same thing when they are doing so openly. To keep a larger group doing so covertly – without defections and confessions and cock ups is just too difficult. So no use in you beating me with that stick. I plead not guilty.

    There is, however, a powerful and universal phenomenon called ‘Groupthink’, that you would do well to research.

    As to qualifications, I would merely point out your earlier remark

    ‘However, with the advantage of my MA, I am trying to help people see the psychology and the politics that underlies the denial of all our environmental problems’

    drew the reader’s attention to examine yours. It would have made a perfectly good sentence without the ‘with the advantage of my MA’ . Though I have to question whether ranting on about deniers and tobacco and merchants of doubt and fluffing your big chance with Lindzen in public is the right way to persuade intelligent people that you are indeed the right person to help them see their psychological flaws.

    A strategy based on frequent throwaway evidence-free remarks and insults followed up by nothing other than apologies for the obvious errors that are soon called out does not seem to me to be a winning one, however passionately you hold your convictions

    Latimer Alder

    1 March 2012 at 04:54

    • PS Happy to read your MA thesis. I see no reason why anybody else would be interested in your e-mail address so I won’t pass it on.

      Latimer Alder

      1 March 2012 at 06:10

      • You must be joking. Your mind is closed; and why should I trust anyone who is so happy to insult me and/or dismiss the work of at least 10 times as many scientists as those on whom you rely as a “new religion”? In any case, a great deal of my MA research – into the psychology and politics underlying the denial of environmental problems, and the arguments used and preferred by different groups (i.e. “sceptical” organisations, scientists, economists, politicians, and others) – is already on this Blog (or my Earthy Issues blog that preceded it). If you want to, search the category index for people you know! Otherwise, a good place to start would be How to be a climate change sceptic (7 September 2011).

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 07:49

    • PPS

      It was a good tip of yours to save any comments in case they are deleted. At Climate Etc JC’s that very very very rarely happens (*). But since you drew the possibility to my attention, I’ve saved mine – and yours – anyway.

      *And comments are not deleted there because of their content, but because they are just silly spats from trolls and those foolish enough to rise to their bait.

      Latimer Alder

      1 March 2012 at 07:21

      • I don’t care much for how other people choose – or fail – to interpret their own rules. I have made clear my policy and I will blacklist people who fail to adhere to it. JK wasted my time for nearly 4 weeks. If you want to last that long, you had better be extremely careful. However, I will now take you out of Moderation and, as a one-off goodwill gesture, I will forgive you previous misdemeanours (as they may just about be excusable on the grounds of ignorance).

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 08:51

    • Latimer, you think your view “is based on observational evidence and the scientific way of doing things” and, no doubt, so does Lindzen. But, Lindzen can’t validate his views without invoking conspiracy theory and neither can you. Just as with Lindzen, your data will always be cherry-picked and manipulated to suit your argument. You, of course, will just accuse the consensual scientists of much the same or worse but, as I have said many times now, you are picking a fight with history and science and – I can promise you – you will lose (the argument).

      There is only one of us in this discussion who is guilty of Groupthink; and it is not me. As I said, if you cannot see the link between climate change denial and the previous denial of a whole range of environmental problems, which are a matter of historical fact (what better evidence is there?), I really cannot help you further.

      Commenters in the Curry House only extracted apologies from me by indulging in pedantic debates about whether it was me or Lord Monckton that caused me to be prevented from asking a question; or because I may have deviated momentarily from a strategy of being careful not to accuse Lindzen of deceit. However, all of this was – and is – merely a strategy for not dealing with my having higlighted the fact that it is time to put an end to Lindzen’s hypocrisy, obfuscation, and misdirection of generally uncritical audiences.

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 07:33

      • @martin

        I specifically disavowed any belief in conspiracy theories above. I will repeat that I do not believe in conspiracies (apart from very short term ones with a very small number of people), because they are just too unwieldy to work. There is no point in beating me about the head with something that I do not subscribe to.

        Love your remark

        ‘because I may have deviated momentarily from a strategy of being careful not to accuse Lindzen of deceit’. I must use it next time I am berated for some activity. ‘Sorry officer, I may have deviated momentarily from a strategy of not driving while p***d out of my mind’ (*)

        And again you concentrate upon Lindzen. And you still haven’t made clear to me exactly what it is that you find so disturbing about his pitch. He’s been giving essentially the same stuff for yonks. So its not new or different – or even very surprising.

        But you keep coming back to this point

        ‘the fact that it is time to put an end to Lindzen’s hypocrisy, obfuscation, and misdirection of generally uncritical audiences’

        But when ever anybody asks you to expand on this point you fail to do so. You managed to create a list of 17 questions – that morphed into pretty general AGW debating points. But nothing specific to Lindzen’s presentation. You can come up with some idea that once upon a time he said some things about tobacco that you disagree with. Fair enough. But do you have any specific criticisms of the actual presentation that Lindzen gave? Any errors of fact (backed up by evidence)? Anything you feel he should have included …or excluded? Was it his delivery? I own to finding the guy ponderous and to having an awful presentation style. But when you actually listen to what he says he makes a good case IMO.

        Just tell us simply and clearly what you think was wrong, Then we can have a discussion about it, Just shouting that you don’t like it is not enough.

        *FYI, I do not drink.

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 08:02

        • Latimer, I know it is long-winded but so is Lindzen. My email details all the ways in which, whether deliberately or not, he clearly misled his audience. He has done so repeatedly; at the ICCC4 in May 2010, before US Congress in November 2010, and now in the Palace of Westminster in 2012. It is always substantially the same material; and it is deeply flawed (for all the reasons I have published here).

          I have asked Lindzen to explain himself, I have copied this material to a half dozen or so key Climate Change websites, and I have sent details to the Editors of the 5 big broadsheet newspapers in the UK. Even if the latter have not taken it up (either because they think Lindzen is a genius and therefore I must be wrong; or because they do not want to give Lindzen the oxygen of publicity), I believe my friends in the blogosphere are indeed trying to get to the bottom of why the most ludicrously hypocritical and misleading slide of them all (i.e. Keeling v Temp) is missing from the PDF.

          Seriously, I ask you, what more could I have done to bring what Lindzen is doing to the world’s attention?

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 08:22

      • @martin

        You ask

        ‘Seriously, I ask you, what more could I have done to bring what Lindzen is doing to the world’s attention?’

        I suggest that you could have distilled your argument onto one sheet of double spaced A4 paper so that busy people would be able to read it quickly and decide whether they needed to study it further or just toss it. And your very rambling and needlessly aggressive style does not invite people to engage any further with you, If you think that you have good points to make there is absolutely no mileage in alienating your potential audience from the get go. You lose the argument in the first ten seconds because people stop listening or reading.

        I imagine you wouldn’t pop into a pub and accost the first person you see with ‘gor blimey you’re a real stupid thicko aren’t you? Compared with me who is really very much cleverer than you. And your bird’s an ugly slag’. If you wouldn’t do it in reality you shouldn’t do it on a blog. Especially one where you have no established track record of respect.

        I used to do a bit of sales training as trainer and trainee. And spent a number of years in high value capital equipment sales. A very good exercise we used was ‘The Elevator Pitch’. The idea is that you find yourself in the lift with the key decision maker (in your case this would be Ed Davey for example). And you have thirty seconds only to make your case and persuade him to do something. You have to get your pitch absolutely perfect for the target audience. To extract just the key point or two, with sufficient evidence to convince.and to do it persuasively in half a minute. Probably ten short sentences max. It’s hard. But very very useful practice.

        Yours, I fear, is a zillion miles away from that. You ask the benighted recipient – who may have no interest in climate and never have heard of Lindzen – to wade through a whole bunch of tedious guff – just about telling your family history on the way, Somewhere in there you have a few pops at Lindzen (big turn off….people do not like unsolicited mail slagging off others). And then eventually you sort of get to some debating questions 5 minutes have gone by reading this and the recipient sees them and bins it.

        So I would go back to short and concise. With well-organised backup if needed. Think of a report with a management summary. I’d cancel all the insults (no gain all pain), and I’d spend a long time thinking about who the recipients are, where they are going to be coming from and what action I am asking them to take. Then I’d craft my work. And maybe test drive it with an audience who I’d primed to be as troublesome as I could.

        That’s how I’d do it. But what do I know? I’m just a run of the mill climate sceptic who spent his career in and around high-value sales and have a successful practical track record of happy and contented customers and acheived sales quotas. While you of course have an MA, and are going to help us to see the error of our ways by shouting at us and calling us names. H’mm

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 09:01

        • You make some good points there, Latimer. But I do not think I need take any advice from you about treating people with respect. I explained to Lindzen in one paragraph why he should not dismiss me as an ignorant crank. Can you please take some of your own medicine and be more concise.

          Earlier, you described my 17 statements as “debating points”. This is your problem: You can’t recognise a near-certainty when you read one.

          However, you do not need to indulge in self-deprecation, you are no run-of-the-mill climate sceptic; you are clearly a well-educated one. But that does not make you right; just as it does not change the fact that, since you insist you are no conspiracy theorist, you are content to dismiss the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature on climate science as being at best misguided.

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 09:14

  22. Latimer – I never predicted that NY would be under water, I “Stated” that NY was lucky not to be underwater because Global Warming conditions turned the moisture into snow and spread said snow across the entire northern hemisphere as well as turning much of the same moisture into flooding rains across the southern hemisphere.

    Can you not read or is it something that gives you a headache and leaves you confused as to the things others write? COMPREHENSION has a definition, learn all about it here:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprehension

    Donald

    1 March 2012 at 07:48

    • Just to finish off, considering that all that snow is now spread around the entire hemisphere then I doubt if it will all flow towards New York.

      Donald

      1 March 2012 at 07:52

    • @donald

      My comprehension is just fine thanks. Been reading and writing and editing and publishing stuff for a long time

      ‘had the resultant effect of dumping all the moisture both in Europe and Nth America as SNOW …. otherwise New York would be X feet underwater’

      Difficult to read your sentence in a different manner. Let me translate

      ‘If it had not dumped all the water as snow, NYC would be X feet underwater’

      So it is a simple question …when the snow melts, will NYC be x feet underwater?

      Or is the proposition ‘otherwise NYC would be X feet underwater’ not true?

      Latimer Alder

      1 March 2012 at 08:15

      • Yes, the proposition that ‘otherwise NYC would be X feet underwater’ is entirely true although thanks to the moisture turning into snow and flooding rains (across the world) it did not happen; but there is no need to believe little ol’ me, try these links:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269
        http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/03/01/30162/

        PS: I cannot say exactly what “X” would be as until the Greenland ice finishes melting my computations would be unrealistically low, so for the moment I would only venture to say that “X” might very well imply that people in NY should buy themselves some gum boots in preparations for some possible future event. :-)

        Donald

        1 March 2012 at 08:38

      • Hey, Latimer. You will be proud of me for doing this: Having recently discovered the delights of Ctrl+F to find text on a webpage (as per Ctrl E F in Word docs), I think I have now worked out why people put “@searchtext” at the start of their comments… Surely you will at least admit that, unlike some people, when presented with new information I learn from it…!

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 09:03

      • @donald

        All the snow that fell this winter will eventually turn to meltwater and flow into the sea. Any that doesn’t will be increasing the amount of water tied up in glaciers and reducing the sea level. You cannot have it both ways.

        Either the snow stopped NYC being underwater (in which case NYC will be underwater when it melts). Or it did not. Which is it?

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 09:06

  23. @martin

    Glad to know that you are still learning. There are lots of good windows shortcuts around too. Try these and see if any are useful to you.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/301583

    Latimer Alder

    1 March 2012 at 09:08

    • This blog has three-tier reply format. Please stop being lazy and use it. Given your repetitive failure to do this, you force me to spell it out to you: When you get to the third tier, you have to scroll-up to find the last comment in tier two and click reply there instead. If you feel I am being pedantic and/or cannot be bothered to comply, you know where to go.

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 09:20

    • Thanks Martin

      I wrote earlier about your needlessly aggressive and unpleasant style. Here’s another example where you have specifically gone out of your way to alienate me. And for no reason. By doing so you have not advanced your position one iota.

      Once you have arrived at the position where nobody at all bothers to listen to you, read your e-mails or take the slightest interest in your opinions – a condition which seems to be approaching at breakneck speed – I wonder exactly how you are going to fulfil your self-appointed mission of showing us poor sceptics the error of our ways.

      A prophet needs to have an audience. You are losing yours.

      Latimer Alder

      1 March 2012 at 09:32

      • How dare you? It is utterly hypocritical of you to lecture me on standards of decency. If I was to behave as you have done on here, I should have accused Linzden of only being sceptical in order to boost his income because he is Jewish. But I did not do this, did I?

        I asked you once and gave you a good reason – to avoid comment spaghetti (i.e. orpaned and widowed comments). On the second ocassion, I was more forceful; but still polite. However, if you want me to be rude, I will. You are sailing very close to the edge. Be careful.

        Yet again, as was always the case in the Curry House, trying to pick faults with what I say is no substitute for not having a sound scientific basis for maintaining your “scepticism”. Please try and limit your future remarks to addressing this deficiency.

        Martin Lack

        1 March 2012 at 09:41

      • @martin

        I am not lecturing you on ‘standards of decency’. I am pointing out that your remark about the way I used nesting (seems to have been sthg I didn’t know about the setup here – just like you didn’t know about CTRL/F) was unnecessarily unpleasant. And that by continuing to be so aggressive you alienate the very audience that you claim you want to reach.

        You, of course, are the only one who can decide whether you think your approach is working, but my observation fwiw is that it is not.

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 09:50

        • Comments are nested in exactly the same way in the Curry House, Latimer; and I think you know that. Most people seem to ignore it. So be it but, this is my Blog. Given the level of vitriol and ridicule to which I was subjected in the Curry House, just for trying to inject some reality into proceedings, your request for an apology is laughable; as is your attempt to defend it. Do I, or do I not, have the right to ask people to respect the way I would like things to be done on my own blog?

          Anyway, you – and Barry now I see – are continuing to accuse me of lies (etc), rather than address the absence of an sound reason for being “sceptical” regarding the validity of the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. Once again, as with JK, I find myself repeating myself. Why is that? Is it because you people (oops!) are being paid to waste the time of those like me that seek to point people in a sane direction?

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 10:54

    • The snows will melt in the summer, the waters will then flow into the rivers where they will be picked up by spaceships manned by employees of the Al Gore society and then dumped on New York City in a continuous manner until all its citizens are forced to buy gum boots through an Al Gore mail order house. He will then reap millions of dollars at which point he will pay me 50% of the profits for having provided the software to run the spaceships and the great Global Warming Scam we are all actively trying to perpetrate on humanity.
      At this point Al Gore will retire, I shall become President of the new World Order and Martin shall become the scientific attache for mainland China who will by then be running the world on my behalf … I shall have Jesus in jail by then so there will be no salvation for any of you. I of course will rule from the comforts of my Castle on the moon so as not to get my feet wet from the tears of all those miserable skeptics I intend to send to Antarctica in long boats manned by extinct polar bears. :-(

      So there, that should answer just about all your present questions plus any future ones as well …. further inquiries may be sent to “Donald … C/O The Dear Leader, Moon HQ” :-)

      Donald

      1 March 2012 at 09:49

      • @donald

        Thanks. I knew that you would cough up the real explanation sometime. Now I understand. Ciao

        PS – did you forget the Giant Lizards? They gotta be in there somewhere

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 09:55

        • No, I didn’t forget them, I already have them running most governments, just ask David Icke, he has spent years trying to expose my race which along with the Scientology boys are the true leaders behind my ever growing empire of evil intent. :-)

          Donald

          1 March 2012 at 10:02

      • Damn the Chinese, they can’t keep a secret , my Moon HQ has been discovered by David Icke .. I shall need a new base now before my as yet undiscovered Venusian army is seen through the Hubble telescope . :-)

        http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/62069-extraterrestrials-china-releases-moon-footage-of-alien-bases

        Donald

        1 March 2012 at 10:30

      • He’d have done better to stay playing with Cov. Then he wouldn’t have turned into a lizard (or Jimmy Hill).

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 10:46

  24. @martin

    Just a few things

    1. There is no third level reply’ key visible to me. If there had been I would have used it. Maybe firefox works differently from explorer, or maybe the administrator screen is different from the ordinary one. But I ain’t got one. Is it possible that neither Donald nor JK see it either.

    2. Thank you (I think) for your remark that I am a well-educated sceptic. But I am by no means unusual. If you look through the Denizens thread at Judith’s place, you will see the bios of some of the regulars. In general we have all had pretty successful academic and/or business careers and worked on a wide variety of interesting projects. And are independent minded people, Which explains why the typical characterisation of us as all ignorant oil company shills doing what our Big Oil masters tell us or uneducated rednecks is so ludicrously wide of the mark. I am not beholden to anybody or anything for my opinions and I resent the implication that I am dumb enough to be bought.

    And you do yourself a grave disservice by imagining that we fall into the stupid stereotype of your imagining. Turning up at Judith’s and waving your MA around as a badge of authority doesn’t work. Some of us used to employ dozens of MAs as junior staff in our careers. And we know that it is the qualities beyond the academic knowledge that count. An MA just about qualifies as the entry level. It is not a game changer.

    It is also a big mistake to think that all sceptics are the same. That we all have the same views. That scepticism is defined as the mirror image of alarmism. Whereas there is really only one view of alarmism – written in the Big Black Book of Alarmism from the IPCC – there are as many views of scepticism as there are sceptics. So sweeping generalisations like ‘you all have to believe in conspiracies’ is just daft. Perhaps some do, but many don’t. If you don’t understand this, you will never convert anybody.

    Latimer Alder

    1 March 2012 at 10:44

    • OK, Latimer. That is more like it.

      Firstly, if my blog doesn’t appear to you the way it does to me, I need to know (so that I will stop having a go at people). Therefore, when you reach the nesting limit, can you please confirm whether or not you can scroll (not page) -up and find a reply button? However, since JK eventually managed to do it, I suspect you can too.

      Secondly you are right to take my remark as a compliment. That is how it was intended. However, with all due respect to you – and many others like you – it is very hard for people who have been successful in business to come to terms with the damage that humanity is doing to the planet just by virtue of our everyday activities. So I am sorry if you feel I have painted you all as ignorant fools bought by the FFL. I don’t mean that at all. It is far more complex than that. Let me give you an example:

      A few weeks ago, I posted a couple of items regarding Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. I doubt you have read it; but I think you should. Amongst other things, Diamond has been a commercially-successful consultant to a large number of mining companies. My blog posts do little more than summarise the scope of the book and the reasons why Diamond says we need to learn from history. However, he then goes on to write at length about the Bitterroot Valley in the south west of Montana. Despite it’s well-known natural beauty, the area has a whole raft of complicated environmental problems the solution to which is also complicated (e.g. mid 20th-century fire suppression and a complete logging ban have made forests more prone – not less – to uncontrollable fires).

      So, just as I would not wish to stereotype your position, I hope that, by virtue of your engaging with me like this in rational discussion, you can see that I am not some stereotypical “Greenie” either? If my message is getting through, please do go and read the 2 posts about Diamond’s book. At very least, I would like to hope that you will stop just reading things that reinforce your unwarranted sense of complacency. For example, after all I have said to Lindzen, why do you continue to describe the IPCC as a politicised and/or alarmist institution? I’m genuinely sorry to have to ask this Latimer, but exactly what is that assertion if it is not one of belief in conspiracy theory?

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 11:48

      • 1. ‘it is very hard for people who have been successful in business to come to terms with the damage that humanity is doing to the planet just by virtue of our everyday activities’

        Interesting assertion. But apart from being an assertion, do you have anything to back it up? And being a one-time chemist I like to know not only what happens, but how it happens and why.. So *why* is it very hard for for business people (presumably harder than for yourself and your compadres) especially?

        2. Dunno what FFL means. Fossil Fuel something?
        ['Lobby' - just saying - ML]

        3. Read your posts. It seems Diamond has written the latest Dreadful Warning from History tome…which have been regularly churned out since OT times. Without reading it, I can’t comment specifically. But when I was a kid it ws the bomb that was going to kill us all. then the Next Ice Age, then acid rain, then the ozone hole. AIDS was a goodie, Y2K was big for a while then CJD, then catastrophic global warming now climate change.

        So there’s always somebody somewhere writing catastrophe books. 2000 years ago the bible talks of the end of the world because peeps don’t worship god enough or sthg, Is there anything especially new in Diamond’s book that isn’t just a rehash of the old scares updated for the noughties?

        4. I prefer this by Matt Ridley – ex editor of the New Scientist.

        http://www.rationaloptimist.com/

        Give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

        5. IPCC

        We do not need to look very far to see why IPCC is a politicised and alarmist institution.

        It is The *Intergovernmental* Panel on Climate Change. Not just any old international body, but one that is run by the governements. They have a strong say on who is appointed and on the final report, The scientists may write it, but the governments then go through it line by line with the power of veto over anything they do not like. It is another branch of international relations.

        And at a lower level than that, Climategate shows us the shenanigans that senior climate scientists were happy to go with science politics to ensure that the scientific bit reflected their views, not that of all the literature as advertised

        And it is now an institution. All institutions have self-protection built into their DNA. It is inconceivable that IPCC AR5 will announce ‘not much changed from AR4, so we don’t propose to do AR6′. As one of its founders snappily put it ‘we must announce disasters or nobody will listen’ – perhaps a paraphrase, but the sentiment is exact. Alarmism is a requirement for institutional survival.

        So there is no need for a ‘conspiracy’. Just set up an institution with strong governmental control and let it rip. The alarmism will generate itself just by the institutional need to survive.

        Many are beginnignto think that IPCC5 will be poorly received. People are sick and tired of dredaful warnings of imminent climate disaster than never come to pass. And I doubt if AR6 will ever happn. Not because AR5 won’t try to push in that direction, but because the wider populace just can’t be arsed any more.

        That’s a hurdle you will have to overcome to achieve your goal.There’s people like me going around spreading apathy all over the place.

        Latimer Alder

        1 March 2012 at 12:48

        • Latimer, I am not going to bother wasting my time addressing the points you raise here, unless you post an apology/retraction of your derogatory remark about me on Dr Curry’s blog (i.e. by replying to it there). When you have done that, come back here and we can continue this discussion. However, if you do not feel you owe me an apology I see no reason to continue to accept your input here. You decide. Everyone has their lines in the sand and, with that remark, I am afraid you crossed over mine. If you should choose to decline this offer, I am sorry because, it almost seemed like you were willing to be reasonable.

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 14:11

      • “it is very hard for people who have been successful in business to come to terms with the damage that humanity is doing to the planet just by virtue of our everyday activities”
        I would like to hear about what damage is being done by virtue of our everyday activities.

        Sammy Osceola

        1 March 2012 at 12:56

        • I believe I have addressed the folly of your unwarranted optimism in my response to your comment on my critique of Meritocracy today. I really don’t feel like repeating myself anymore. If you don’t want to listen, that is not my fault.

          Martin Lack

          1 March 2012 at 13:33

  25. Latimer,

    Please study how the IPCC actually works and not keep repeating your tired old mantra here, or elsewhere for that matter. Have you actually studied the IPCC FAR, the many chapters of the many parts, or any of the earlier reports?
    Here, I’ll help you out.

    As far as Lindzen’s presentation to some in the House of Commons Committee Rooms… [following up on a similar denial baffle-gab last November 30th - with Stott, Plimer, Donna Laframbouse (recently exposed start at comment 9), Ruth 'Lysenkoism' Lea (see comment 37), and Matt Ridley (more on him later)]…
    …is concerned it is virtually a copy of that which he gave to a US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010.

    I am studying both page-by-page and noting the egregious deceptions that are being repeated. He quotes Wunch 2007 on sea level rise. Hang on a minute, a ‘practising scientist’ would keep up with the scientific literature WRT the points he makes; and would this appreciate that the statement of Wunch tells us little about the current state of the science.

    Just like you, Lindzen undermines the IPCC at every chance when, as a scientist still thinking like a scientist, he should know that his words are false. Here’s further evidence (as if you need it) that Lindzen can be slippery is clear to many:

    If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it

    Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?

    Lindzen Illusions

    for those wondering why Tobacco keeps cropping up in discussions of Lindzen

    I could go on but that would be to over-egg….

    Now on an informative note watch this:

    Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

    Lionel A

    1 March 2012 at 17:35

    • Sorry Lionel, Latimer’s blacklisted. I asked him to apologise for personal remarks in contravention of Curry House policy but he chose to re-state his illegitimate argument. You will, however, find him (and many others) continuing to ridicule me over there. As for me, I am maintaining a policy of complete abstinence.

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 18:26

  26. Fat chance of that post of mine staying up at Spicey Curry but here is another reason for why Lindzen is wrong, and if still a proper scientist he should be well aware of it:

    The Arctic Death Spiral Continues: Thick, Multi-Year Sea Ice Melting Faster, NASA Study Finds .

    Lionel A

    1 March 2012 at 20:07

    • Wow, Lionel – you’re red hot. I will have to subscribe to TP (groan – yet more email).

      Martin Lack

      1 March 2012 at 21:40

  27. Hello.
    Apart from the usual suspects who attended (whom you have already mentioned) were there any other attendees who could be of ‘note’ ? Eg. David Bellamy, Philip Foster (both Patrons of Repeal the Act), etc ? Do you know if any journalists were there ? (And no, that doesn’t include Delingpole, of course !) Generally, was it mainly members of the public ?

    JMurphy

    2 March 2012 at 11:43

    • Hi there. Piers Corbyn, Philip Foster and Sammy Wilson were on the top table along with Lord Monckton (chair) and the speaker. Delingpole claims to have been there but I did not see him (as I was hoping to speak to him). For other information on attendees, please see my response to Lionel here. Yes, I think it was mostly members of the public, but was meant to be mostly Parliamentarians.

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 13:40

      • OK, thanks for the extra information. One other thing, Monckton claims the following:
        “Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade ‘global warming’ as nonsense).”

        Any idea if that was true and, if it was, who he could be referring to?

        JMurphy

        2 March 2012 at 14:15

        • Interesting soundbyte – where’s it from Moncktonblog of Moncktonbook? do you have a URL?

          The Cabinet Minister is almost certainly Conservative, although I am fairly sure Caroline Spelman is not sceptical. Apart from Graham Stringer (Lab) all openly-sceptical MPs (i.e. those that have come out of the closet) are Conservative. This is because scepticism is generally ideological blindness driven by unquestioning adherence to free market economics. This is why many climate sceptics are also Euro sceptics.

          If you can give me a URL, I will see if my sympathetic MP can find out more. In my book, briefing a Cabinet Minister is interfering in the political process.

          Martin Lack

          2 March 2012 at 15:02

      • Peter Lilley MP was there.. J Delingpole was at the back, don’t think he was there for all of it.

        Barry Woods

        3 March 2012 at 13:20

        • Thanks for confirming JD was there (as indeed he claims he was) – I only questioned this because I know he was not there at the start when version 2 of his fallacious book was plugged. As for Peter Lilley, his presence was noted by me in response to Lionel earlier (where links are provided to my MA research findings for each key individual named).

          Martin Lack

          3 March 2012 at 14:15

  28. I posted the URL earlier but it seems to have disappeared, maybe because it was from WUWT ?!
    Anyway, I’ll try again because it is one of the least worst sites where you can see Monckton’s statement : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/fakegate-why-the-perps-should-be-prosecuted/

    JMurphy

    3 March 2012 at 00:45

    • Thanks. Not sure what happened – I did not delete it intentionally. In the interim, I found it on Climate Realists. Once again, very grateful for the heads-up. It may well be Moncktonesque muck-raking and/or entirely spurious propaganda but I will find out.

      Martin Lack

      3 March 2012 at 06:30

  29. One question as a starting point:
    Martin – Can you give me one scientific study which MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2?
    Since Climatesight deletes most contrary questions and points, it is a waste of time going there.

    Gerald Machnee

    6 March 2012 at 19:32

    • OMG! Do you mean to say someone else is actually less tolerant of “contrarians” than I am? This astonishing revelation needs to be relayed to all those in the Curry House (i.e. Judith Curry’s blog) who seem to be upset by my blacklisting people who re-state debunked arguments more than twice.

      However, the short answer is no. Why do you not believe what the majority of climate scientists tell us (based on over 150 years of scientific study)? If you want answers to basic questions like this (since I am not trying to be unhelpful – merely to tease out why you are asking the question), I would recommend visiting http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm where you will find the issue addressed at three different levels of technical detail – as may be appropriate to your (undisclosed) level of prior knowledge and/or prejudice (N.B. no offence intended by this).

      Martin Lack

      6 March 2012 at 20:00

      • You did not answer the question and neither does you reference. I do not believe what they tell us because they have not measured it. A consensus is not a proof. This is not a debunked argument – it is a question.

        Gerald Machnee

        6 March 2012 at 23:09

        • What is climate sensitivity if it is not exactly what you were asking about? I see no need to waste my time answering your spurious question. Look it up on the Internet (e.g. in Google Scholar or some such specialised search engine). However, the consensus is that it is somewhere in excess of 2.5 Celsius. See also There is not cause for alarm? – You cannot be serious!

          People who suffer from cognitive dissonance (e.g. those who believe the Moon Landings were faked and/or that 9/11 was an inside job) have to keep re-writing history every time new information conflicts with their theory. The vast majority of the World’s active climate researchers are not doing this!

          Martin Lack

          7 March 2012 at 03:08

      • “However, the consensus is that it is somewhere in excess of 2.5 Celsius. See also: ‘There is not cause for alarm? – You cannot be serious!’”
        Again, you say the “consensus” says in excess of 2.5 degrees. No engineering quality calculation. Yes, I know there is a lot of extreme weather occurring, and importantly, has occurred, and will continue to occur, increased CO2 or not. This is why you are an alarmist – no proof of measurement or detailed calculation. All based on theory.

        Gerald Machnee

        7 March 2012 at 22:31

        • You are only demanding evidence from me as a result of your a priori assumption that the consensus is invalid because it is telling you something you don’t want to hear.

          Martin Lack

          7 March 2012 at 22:41

        • Crickey! Here is one single study (I’m giving you a short one). There are dozens of them; but this one should get you started… It is obvious that you do not understand how CO2 works; so first go and learn what binds the gas together, how much it weights, what is the reflectivity of the gas and so on… Then, when you understand these things you won’t ask such questions.

          http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no

          PS: “All based on theory”?? How does a theory come about if not through observation, experimentation, quantification and an understanding of scientific methodology?

          PerfectStranger

          16 March 2012 at 09:32

        • Thanks Donald. I’m not sure it was worth the effort. Gerald was almost certainly a “one hit wonder” with ADHD.

          Martin Lack

          16 March 2012 at 09:42

        • ADHD??? Nah! I’m guessing Dorkatitis Phsychiosa with a possible anusoidal bainwave pattern :-(

          And yes, the condition does exist, It is often seen at the back of Aussie pubs. :-)

          PerfectStranger

          16 March 2012 at 10:10

        • Yes – I remember witnessing that in Kings Cross (in Sydney).

          Martin Lack

          16 March 2012 at 10:19

  30. [...] Martin Lack, who attended this presentation, has published a subsequent letter he sent to Lindzen.  This letter covers some of the points in Lindzen's presentation which we did not cover here, [...]

  31. [...] news is bad news. Although some will no doubt say that my first 1800-word email was out-of-order; and never going to receive a response from a busy man, I did get a response [...]

  32. [...] and most recently, I am extremely grateful to Lionel A Smith for sharing with me the benefit of his many years of research into the hypocrisy, obfuscation and [...]

  33. [...] the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems) as follows: An open letter to Richard Lindzen (28 February 2012) - 1800 word email with questions from me. Prof. Lindzen – try this instead! (29 February [...]

  34. [...] profit before sustainable development. Unfair criticism? I don’t think so. With my thanks to Lionel A Smith (for some of these links), here is the [...]

  35. Looks like Lindzen strikes again he cannot be wrong unwittingly any longer.

    Lionel A

    31 July 2012 at 17:30

  36. January 2013 and the MET Office admit no warming for 15 years… game set and match.

    By the way in 2002 NASA launched the Aqua Satellite and they expected to find hotspots in the Troposphere… none found. In 2004 and backed up in Climategate emails the IPCC deliberately renamed Global Warming… Climate Change, an all embracing catch phrase that they can use for any climate event.

    It is acknowledged that a doubling of CO2 will only create about 1C… but due to the logarithmic nature of CO2′s ability to create heat any further doubling will result in less than 1C and so on.

    Contrary to popular opinion, Antartica has its highest ever recorded ice levels and only a violent late season storm reduced the ice in the Arctic last summer as all throgh the winter the levels were similar to the 1979-2000 levels.

    CO2 was up to 15 times current levels 500 million years ago and if the climate could not cope we would not be here. If anything current levels show CO2 starvation.

    Please find another useless cause and kindly understand that there is no climate catastrophe… but there is a humanitarian disaster as over 1.5 billion people live in abject poverty and all you have achieved is to make their situation worse. Especially as bio-fuels have reduced the food supply by 6%… with increased prices adding to their misery.

    Please learn the difference between climate playstation models and empirical data based science.

    holbroook

    19 January 2013 at 17:58

  37. If Lindzen had responses, then why are they not here for all to read? Do you expect that we should just take your word for it that even with multiple responses, he did not respond to your questions?

    As far as anyone here knows, he responded to every question you had, and your only means of avoiding embarrassment was to withhold his letters.

    What gives?

    Ryder

    23 April 2013 at 10:04

    • If you prefer to believe him rather than me (despite the apparent hypocrisy of his using the same tricks he accuses others of using), why don’t you ask him if he responded to any of my questions? His professional email address (…@mit.edu) is easy to find (so long as you remember that he chooses to be called “dick”).

      In point of fact, his only response has been to continue to misrepresent facts, either willfully or due to incompetence (I am unable to determine which it is).
      http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/and-then-there-were-three/

      Martin Lack

      23 April 2013 at 10:31


Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 297 other followers

%d bloggers like this: